ABRAHAM CONFERENCE SATURDAY 22 May , 2004 AUSTRALIAN CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY 115 VICTORIA PARADE EAST MELBOURNE ABRAHAM LECTURE KEY NOTE SPEECH DELIVERED BY SIR JAMES GOBBO AC CVO FORMER GOVERNOR OF VICTORIA CHAIR, AUSTRALIAN MULTICULTURAL FOUNDATION Sir James Gobbo Abraham Conference 2004 1 It is an honour to be asked to give this address. The figure chosen to provide a title and an inspiration for this Conference is Abraham. It is an admirable choice for he is revered by the three great monotheistic faiths which have come together to present this Conference. Abraham is also apposite as a patron for a Conference the main context for which is the story of a society like Australia made up almost entirely of immigrants. After consulting the Historical Atlas of the Jewish People I find that Abraham’s migrations traversed many nations and exceeded those of the subsequent prophet Moses. Abraham has a particular timely relevance for me as in recent days, I attended the funeral service for a much loved Parish Priest. In an overflowing Cathedral, I recall vividly the beautiful final prayer which called on angels to lead him to Abraham’s side. We come together at a time when it can properly be said that there has never been a greater acceptance of the cultural diversity of our Australian society and a greater recognition of the many benefits of this diversity. Multiculturalism which is the philosophy which helps manage this diversity has substantial acceptance across the country. And yet there seems to be still embedded a reservation about diversity of religions and that religious differences are at the root of the conflicts and turmoil which daily fill our televisions screens with grim news and horrors. How has this come about? In the story of the development of multiculturalism since the migration boom which began in the 1950s, surely the beneficial role of religion and its contribution for good were frequently discussed and recognized? The contrary appears to be the case. How and why did this come about and what arguably are the possible consequences of this failure today. Lest you think that I am exaggerating, let me simply draw to your attention one simple fact. In all the many major conferences from the late 1960s onwards when multiculturalism was being discussed and formulated, no conference was ever held which discussed this topic in the primary context of religion. The first time that this occurred was in July 1997 when there took place in Melbourne a major Conference entitled Religion and Cultural Diversity; this Conference was arranged by the Australian Multicultural Foundation. There were of course many interfaith meetings but these were not held to see faith in the wider context of diversity. Rather they focussed on bridging interfaith differences. It was Sir James Gobbo Abraham Conference 2004 2 only in the 1997 conference that it was squarely asked how can one talk of cultural diversity without talking of religion, for the cultures which our immigrants brought with them invariably had religion as their core. Let us briefly review the story of the development of multiculturalism as we know it today and then we can return to this strange absence of the ongoing explicit nexus between religion and a successful culturally diverse society. In the period of high immigration, namely in the 1950s and 1960s, there was little debate about what philosophy of settlement should apply in relation to our large intake of immigrants. So far as Government was concerned, there was no statement of official policy - reasoned or otherwise - beyond that implicit in descriptions of the settlement process and to the pace of assimilation. As to the community, be it the newcomer or the host, there was negligible discussion until the late 1960s on policies relating to the preservation of culture and identity. Such discussion as did occur was generally confined to the particular issues of language teaching and welfare services. There was, however, from an early stage, indeed as early as the 1950s, discussion in academic circles. Here, too, there was generally an assumption that assimilation was the appropriate approach. There was no uniformity in the use of the terms “assimilation” and “integration”. It was said that “assimilation” involved eventual conformity at all social and cultural levels with the host society. Sometimes, this was associated with invisibility, that is to say, unrecognisability as a migrant. The Australian Population and Immigration Council in its Green Paper “Immigration Policies and Australia’s Population” 1977 wrote of the years 1947-1976, “... until quite recently there was an expectation in both Government and community that migrants should be assimilated as quickly as possible. The most desirable migrant was considered to be the one who was most nearly Australian”. F.D. Lewins, writing in 1987, describes the early academic work as follows: Sir James Gobbo Abraham Conference 2004 3 “In the early 1950’s there was little evidence of any questioning of assimilation as a worthwhile concept and the term was employed liberally in the titles of many articles and monographs”. Apart from academia and at what might be described at a political level, there was not a great deal of elaboration as to what was involved in assimilation. The index of success for individual migrants was related to the rapidity with which they made their way forward in economic terms and, more generally, to what extent they adopted what was seen as a typical Australian life-style. The public pronouncements were a combination of self-congratulation and reassurance of those who were dubious about the merits of bringing in such a high proportion of non-English speaking migrants. The main and regular forums for discussion were the annual Citizenship Conventions between 1950 and 1970. Dr James Darling, the famous Headmaster of Geelong Grammar School and later Sir James Darling, Chairman of the ABC, when addressing the Convention in 1959, warned participants against a policy of assimilation as opposed to seeking a new unity of old and new Australians and against any attempt to force newcomers into a pattern of Australia “as it used to be”. The Citizenship Conventions have been described as “carefully organised to avoid controversy”. The format of these meetings was not suited to the discussion of problems – however, by the late 1960’s some searching papers began to appear. The most significant of these were by Dr. Jerzy Zubrzycki of the Department of Sociology at the Australian National University. By the late 1960’s there were increasing indications that any notion of rapid assimilation was a pipe dream and that there were very many migrants who had little knowledge of English and who were unlikely ever to become proficient in it. This was especially true of those women who remained at home. When large numbers of migrant women later joined the work force, it was often in settings where little knowledge of English was required. Integration began to be preferred to assimilation as a term. There was no unanimity as to what integration meant any more than there was as to the meaning of assimilation. But it was intended to convey a process in which there was a measure of accommodation by the host society and in which the migrants were encouraged to Sir James Gobbo Abraham Conference 2004 4 make their own recognisable contributions. The essential assumption in assimilation was that it was the migrant who had to be the subject of change. It may have been thought that retention of previous culture would be a private matter only, essentially related to family living. It was in this context that religion was mentioned and otherwise there was scarcely any discussion of the role of religion in the settlement process. By the end of the 1960s there were many pressures to develop a coherent set of policies which, unlike previous assumptions such as assimilation, recognised the continuing cultural diversity of Australian society. Not only were the migrants of the 1950s and 1960s not becoming unrecognisably Australian, but there were new sources of migrants that made this goal ever more remote. As it was clear that Australia would always be a country of immigration, and as the variety of sources expanded, there would be continuing waves of ever more diverse cultures. In this setting, there was an obvious need for a new philosophy for handling the diversity and for providing a set of principles for the provisions of settlement services for migrants. This need for a new philosophy was not to be properly met for nearly two decades, until the National Agenda of 1989. In the interval there were to be many discussions, debates and consultations. There was, however, considerable progress in the provision of services especially in education and welfare. Planning would have been earlier and more would probably have been achieved had there been greater intellectual rigour in the debates which occurred. The starting point commonly accepted for term multiculturalism in Australia was its use by A.L. Grassby, Minister for Immigration in the Whitlam Government. In a paper entitled “A Multi-Cultural Society for the Future” delivered in Melbourne on August 11, 1973, Grassby spoke of an ethnic diversification of unparalleled dimensions. He referred to the three philosophies current in relation to large scale migration as the Anglo conformist view, the melting pot view and the concept of permanent ethnic pluralism “whereby each ethnic group desiring it is permitted to create its own communal life and preserve its own cultural heritage indefinitely, while taking part in the general life of the nation”. Though he later adopted the substance of the pluralist approach he preferred to use the concept of “The Family of the Nation”.